View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Kaye Bowman and Suzy McKenna, Kaye Bowman Consulting,Tabatha Griffin, National Centre for Vocational Education Research
BALANCING CONSISTENCY AND FLEXIBILITY IN STUDENT TRAINING ENTITLEMENTS: RESEARCH OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTIONThis research overview summarises the work undertaken by Kaye Bowman and Suzy McKenna in exploring
jurisdictional approaches to the implementation of student entitlements to vocational skills training, a key reform
initiative in the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform (NPASR) of 2012—16. The overview is a condensed
summary of three related papers, the first being a description of the recent evolution of a national training system,
the second a detailed description and analysis on the manner in which student entitlements have been implemented
by the states and territories, and, thirdly, the reflective opinions of informed experts on these issues. It highlights
similarities and differences in the implementation of student entitlements and, pieced together, it examines the
balance between the consistency of the national policy approach and practised jurisdictional flexibility, and the
consequences for the longer-term objectives of the national training system.
These reports can be viewed at <www.ncver.edu.au>.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview2
z The 2012—16 National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform
included reforms to be implemented nationally and others to be
implemented with jurisdictional flexibility, with outcomes intended to
improve the accessibility, equity, transparency, quality, efficiency and
responsiveness of training. A key flexible reform was an entitlement to
government-subsidised training, capable of being delivered by all eligible
training organisations, accompanied by complementary strategies to
enable public providers to operate effectively in an environment of
greater competition.
z Jurisdictions have implemented their student entitlement arrangement
using different approaches to accommodate local skills needs and training
systems. The flexibility allowed has given rise to eight distinct systems.
z The differences in entitlement arrangements as at 30 March 2015 are
related to eligibility, the available courses, and the subsidy levels and
loadings or concessions granted, and student fee levels. This has ensured
complexity for students. Contracted providers have delivered student
entitlement training of variable quality, and, in the worst extreme, so poor
to be the subject of disputes impacting students.
z Observed learnings and policy adjustments across the jurisdictions
suggest there is scope to consider greater national consistency in
eligibility for access and equity reasons, and more coherent and
transparent public-value tests in setting subsidy levels for quality
reasons. More consumer knowledge of provider quality and student
costs is also essential to inform student choice of training.
z The different approaches taken regarding the role and contribution of
public providers in the shifting market structure have created additional
tension in achieving the right balance between national consistency and
needed flexibility across the national vocational education and training
(VET) system.
z Overall, the original concept of a student ‘entitlement’ now sits in some
contrast to what has evolved, this being several different ‘managed
demand-driven systems’, needing to satisfy industry and jobs demand
within constrained public budgets.
HIGHLIGHTS
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 3
THE RESEARCH PROJECT
This project was commissioned to explore the approaches taken to the
establishment of a student entitlement funding model by each jurisdiction.
Three discrete pieces of work have been completed:
z a review of the literature on the history of VET in Australia to re-establish
the fundamentals of the national training system and where student
entitlements fit (Bowman & McKenna 2016a).
z documentation of each jurisdiction’s approach to student training
entitlements and the associated provider quality standards as at the end of
March 2015 and an analysis of the commonalities and differences (Bowman
& McKenna 2016b).
z interviews with 17 thought leaders in VET from differing senior vantage
points for their views on the national VET system and student training
entitlements and the tensions between consistency and flexibility therein
(Bowman & McKenna 2016c).
DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL VET SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIAIn 1992 the decision was taken to create a national VET system through a
cooperative federalist approach, wherein intergovernmental agreements were
used to signify the commitment of all jurisdictions to the implementations
of decisions reached or confirmed by the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG). At that point in time, vocational education and training in Australia
essentially comprised eight public TAFE (technical and further education)
systems run by the various state and territory governments. A national
approach to VET was seen as needed to ensure Australia’s competitiveness.
The journey since has been notable for significant churn in national VET
governance arrangements and advisory structures such as: the open/close of a
national training authority and a skills advisory authority; different structures
for ministerial councils; varying industry advisory arrangements; and differing
bodies accrediting training products and regulators.
Nevertheless, this collective expertise has broadly pursued the same
objectives and unifying principles for improving the national VET system.
These are presently captured in the objectives and reforms specificed in
the National Skills and Workforce Development Agreement and the National
Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform.
A national approach to VET was seen
as needed to ensure Australia’s competitiveness.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview4
Long term goals of the national VET system
A ‘national’ VET system was framed to achieve portability of consistent
high-quality VET skills in order to improve national productivity and Australia’s
competitiveness in the global economic marketplace. It recognised that a
more mobile workforce was needed, meaning Australian firms could access
and recruit from a nationally recognised skills pool. Of equal importance
was creating equity of individual opportunity, participation and choice in
vocational learning pathways. Measurable improvements in the national
VET skills pool and in employment among graduates were, and remain, the
end goals.
Strategic objectives
A set of six inter-related objectives have shaped and continue to drive the
operation of the national VET system and are used to gauge performance.
These include:
z responsiveness: to industry, individual and community needs so VET skills
gained are used
z quality: in training delivery and learning outcomes
z equity: of access, participation and outcomes for individuals
z public value: by efficient pricing of government-funded VET and directing
it to skilling for employment outcomes
z sustainability: shared investment by governments (where there is public
value), enterprises (private value), and individuals (private value)
z transparency: so individuals and enterprises are able to understand
and navigate the VET system and make informed training decisions (see
Bowman & McKenna 2016a for details).
Measurable improvements in the national VET skills pool and in employment among graduates were, and remain, the end goals.
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 5
Essential strategic elements
National VET reforms have aimed to achieve three essential underpinning
and enduring strategic elements. Operating together, each contributes to
achieving optimal balance between consistency and flexibility in the national
VET system:
z national standards for VET products (that is, training packages and
accredited courses), aimed at achieving consistent quality training
outcomes responsive to current and future jobs but with flexibility
regarding how VET providers deliver the training products and individuals
achieve their specific outcomes
z national frameworks/standards for VET providers (and registering
agencies), to provide consistent thresholds for provider entry into the
nationally recognised training market to assure quality delivery of training
products but with flexibility to encourage registered training organisations
(RTOs) to pursue even higher standards
z a national training market made up of registered providers, both public
and private, to drive responsiveness and efficiency in training efforts, with
flexibility in publicly funded vocational education and training to ensure
public value (that is, the right mix of skills are achieved, which meet
industry needs and assist VET graduates to obtain jobs or do
further learning).
Figure 1 outlines the key reform initiatives undertaken to develop the three
elements in a timeline.
National VET reforms have
aimed to achieve three essential
underpinning and enduring strategic
elements and an optimal balance
between consistency and flexibility in each
element.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview6
Figure 1 Timeline of key national reform initiatives undertaken to develop the national VET system, as linked to each of the three strategic elements
1992 1996 2000 2010 2015Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)
Competency standards
Training packages (with regular improvements to meet industry needs); Training Package Development Handbook
2012 Standards/policies for training packages
Accredited courses – gradually decreasing in number and with greater industry focusNational register of accredited courses and, from 1996 onwards, training package qualifications
PRO
DU
CT
STA
ND
AR
DS
NFROT/ARF – a single framework for recognition of VET courses, providers (Registered training organisations (RTOs) and state registering and accrediting authorities/regulators)
Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) Standards for RTOs and state registering authorities
2015 Standards for RTOs and registering authorities
National register of RTOs and the qualifications in their scope2011 National VET regulator (ASQA) with Victoria and WA also maintaining state regulator
PRO
VID
ER S
TAN
DA
RD
S
Continuing from 1990s
Profile of activity uncontestably
funded via contract with public providers
Continuing from 1994 Portion of funding via competitive tendering
Continuing from 1997 Portion of funding via
user choice for apprentices and
trainees
Continuing from 2009 Portion of funding to
enterprises via competitive
tendering and first student entitlement
schemes
Continuing from late 2012 Student
entitlement to at least a first
certificate III level nationally and
student loans for diploma and above through VET FEE-
HELPMultiple roles of government separated – i.e. as VET provider, purchaser and regulator
Quality assurance provided via the above two standard elementsImproved consumer information on VET to support good decision-making
Market design principles to support concerted action
NFROT = National Framework for the Recognition of Training; ARF = Australian Recognition Framework
TRA
ININ
G M
AR
KET
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T (P
ublic
ly fu
nded
com
pone
nt)
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 7
Student ‘entitlements’ for training is a relatively recent reform within
the national VET training market. The policy partly evolved from national
responses developed during the Global Financial Crisis, which supported
training in a stressed labour market, and gained impetus in agreements
establishing a ‘demand driven’ system for higher education in response to
the 2008 Bradley Review and recommended reforms (Bradley et al. 2008).
The reform framework for student entitlements in VET was established in
the National Partnership Agreement for Skills Reform of 2012—16 (Council of
Australian Governments 2012, Clause 28(a) and Schedule 3).
What was the student training entitlement model aiming to achieve?
Implementation of the student training entitlement reform had two main
nationally agreed purposes:
z Access and equity
Jurisdictions were required to introduce an entitlement to a subsided
government place to a minimum level of the first certificate III qualification
for those working-aged Australians who do not have a qualification at
this level. Certificate III is the lowest level of post-school qualification
consistently demonstrated to have a positive impact on a person’s
lifetime employment and earnings. In some industries, it is the minimum
qualification needed for entry into jobs. Certificate III level qualifications
and above are also those expected to grow the most to meet the predicted
demand for skills for Australia to continue to compete globally whilst
demand for lower lever qualifications is predicted to fall.
z Consumer choice in training
Jurisdictions were required to allow students with a training entitlement
to choose any RTO from among those approved by a jurisdiction to deliver
their chosen course. This reflects the general direction taken to developing
a training market through public funding arrangements — from supply-
driven towards demand-driven arrangements to encourage efficiency,
responsiveness and innovation among RTOs. Demand-driven
arrangements include user choice within apprenticeships and traineeships,
co-enterprise and public funding programs, and student choice with
training entitlements. There is also greater choice and improved access for
diploma-level VET students through the availability of income-contingent
loans (VET FEE-HELP), which it was agreed would be implemented
concurrently with training entitlements under the 2012—16 National
Partnership Agreement for Skills Reform (see figure 1).
STUDENT TRAINING ENTITLEMENTS
Certificate III is the lowest level of
post-school qualification consistently
demonstrated to have a positive
impact on a person’s lifetime employment
and earnings.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview8
Australia’s student training entitlement funding models are still dynamic.
Flexible elements of the student entitlement reform
Beyond the essential criteria above, the 2012—16 National Partnership
Agreement on Skills Reform allowed for variability in the design and
implementation of student training entitlements by each jurisdiction in
relation to:
z Eligibility: to enable the entitlement to be expanded to more than a first
certificate III and to include people who already have a qualification at
certificate III level or higher
z The courses the entitlement applies to: to ensure public value
z The subsidies, fees and prices of entitlement courses and how budget
control is achieved: to ensure flexibility
z The criteria for RTOs: to access entitlement funding
z How access to information is achieved: to allow students to make
informed training choices.
This flexibility has led to different entitlements in each jurisdiction,
with implications for some of the strategic objectives of the national
training system.
When did jurisdictions implement student training entitlement models?
Student training entitlements were introduced progressively from 2009
(see table 1). Victoria and South Australia implemented student training
entitlement models prior to the 2012—16 National Partnership Agreement
on Skills Reform. Both states have refocused their implementation model
on more than one occasion to address issues identified through monitoring
of the models, including: budget overruns due to high demand linked to the
broad student eligibility criteria; poor job outcomes in some instances due
to uninformed student choice of training course and/or low-quality delivery;
and sustainability issues for some public providers. The lessons learnt from
the implementation of these early models have been taken into account
by the other jurisdictions, which have also made adjustments to their
models according to their own local experience. Australia’s student training
entitlement funding models are still dynamic.
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 9
Eligibility for a training
entitlement differs across
Australia.
Table 1 Jurisdictional student training entitlements by time of first implementation
Jurisdiction Training entitlement implementationVictoria 2009
South Australia 2012
Queensland 2013
Western Australia 2014
Tasmania 2014
Northern Territory 2014
Australian Capital Territory 2015
New South Wales 2015
Commonalities and differences in training entitlement models as at 30 March 2015
The details of the jurisdictional models in operation at the end of March 2015
were analysed and compared (for more detail see Bowman & McKenna 2016b).
The following commonalities and differences were found:
z All jurisdictions had entitlements to at least a first certificate III for those
of working age without a certificate III. All jurisdictions have gone beyond
the minimum requirement but not in the same way (see table 2). Thus,
eligibility for a training entitlement differs across Australia.
z All jurisdictions’ entitlement models involved contestability among
providers, but the extent of the contestability differs across the
jurisdictions. How public providers are supported in the more contestable
market also varies (see table 3).
z All jurisdictions determined the distribution of public funds for
entitlements using skills forecasting and by applying the public-value
principle. However, since the focus is on the skill needs of the economies
within jurisdictional boundaries, the courses eligible for entitlement
funding differ across Australia.
z All jurisdictions had their own set of subsidy levels, student fees and
overall prices that applied to entitlement courses and measures to keep
demand within budget constraints, with some notable differences in the
degree of deregulation of fees and prices, as shown in table 4.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview10
Table 2 Entitlement eligibility by jurisdiction as at 30 March 2015
Jurisdiction Entitlement eligibility1
Victoria
Post-school students aged under 20 years are eligible for any entitlement qualification and those aged over 20 years for a qualification higher than the one already held but with a ‘two commencements at level in a lifetime’ restriction.
South Australia Post-school students, regardless of age and previous education level, to a total of two entitlement courses.
Queensland Post-school students who do not have a certificate III or higher and the entitlement applies to a first, and only one, certificate III.
Western Australia Post-school students, regardless of age and previous education level, and to any number of entitlement courses.
Tasmania Post-school students who do not hold a previous certificate IV or higher and for a first certificate III or higher.
Northern Territory Post-school students, regardless of age and previous education level, and to one entitlement course at a time.
Australian Capital Territory
Post-school students, regardless of age and previous education level, and to one entitlement course at a time.
New South Wales
Post-school students not holding a previous certificate IV or higher and for a first certificate III, and a second certificate III or higher at a lower subsidy rate for those who already have a certificate III.
Note 1 The general citizenship criteria are similar; school students doing VET are also eligible in some jurisdictions.
z All jurisdictions had processes for determining which providers may
deliver their entitlement training. They all have entry-to-market or
contractual arrangements to request additional evidence to demonstrate
quality performance over and above the ‘minimum’ required in relation
to particular criteria in the Standards for registered training organisations
2015. The detail of the contractual requirements can differ markedly.
z All jurisdictions had expanded the public information available on training
entitlements, including the eligibility rules and subsidy levels available for
eligible courses; the nature of the fee rules; and the approved providers.
However, students need information on more than these issues to make an
informed training choice.
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 11
Table 3 Extent of contestability in entitlements and how public providers are supported as at 30 March 2015
Jurisdiction Contestability and public provider support
Victoria The entitlement is embedded in a single contestable funding model, in which public providers receive special base funding and then compete on equal grounds with private providers.
South Australia The entitlement is embedded in a new single contestable funding model, one that provides higher subsidies to public providers than to private providers.
Queensland
The entitlement is one discrete publicly subsidised program of several that complement each other within a new contestable funding model. Public providers receive special base funding and then compete on equal grounds with private providers.
Western AustraliaThe student entitlement is embedded in a new single overall contestable funding model, in which higher subsidies are paid to public providers than to private providers.
Tasmania
The entitlement is embedded in a new contestable entitlement program open to approved private providers only and is also obtainable through the public provider and the uncontested training appropriations it receives from the government.
Northern Territory
The entitlement is embedded in a new contestable entitlement program open to approved private providers only and is also obtainable through the public provider and the uncontested training appropriations it receives from the government.
Australian Capital Territory
The entitlement is embedded in a new contestable entitlement program open to approved private providers only and is also obtainable through the public provider and the uncontested training appropriations it receives from the government.
New South Wales
The entitlement is one discrete publicly subsidised program of several that complement each other within a new contestable funding model. NSW TAFEs still receive uncontested training appropriations.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview12
Table 4 Treatment of subsidies, fees, prices and budget control in entitlements as at 30 March 2015
Jurisdiction Subsidies Fees Prices Budget control
Victoria Variable ―5 bands
Fully deregulated Variable Subsidy
adjustments
South Australia Variable Tuition fixed, discretionary variable
Partly variable Capped places
Queensland Variable ―4 levels
Fully deregulated Variable Non-issue
so far
Western Australia Variable Tuition fixed, discretionary variable
Partly variable Non-issue so far
Tasmania Variable Tuition fixed, discretionary variable
Partly variable Capped places
Northern Territory Fully subsidised
Tuition fixed, discretionary variable
Partly variable Capped places
Australian Capital Territory
Variable3 bands
Semi-deregulated Variable Capped
places
New South Wales Variable Fixed Fixed Capped places
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 13
In terms of equity, it would be useful
if differences in student eligibility for training entitlement
were reduced.
All jurisdictions have introduced student entitlements in accordance with
the 2012—16 National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. However,
the flexibility in the reform has led to eight different jurisdiction-based
entitlement schemes. Some of the VET thought leaders interviewed in this
research suggested that this has resulted in a fragmented national VET system
that, rather than a system in which these differences demonstrate functional
flexibility. They considered it timely to rethink jurisdictional approaches to
student training entitlements and associated provider quality standards in
terms of the national VET objectives, particularly with regard to achieving
equity, quality, public provider sustainability and transparency (Bowman &
McKenna 2016c), as described below.
Access and equity
Student training entitlements are not consistent across jurisdictions. There
are differences in who is eligible for an entitlement and the extent of the
entitlement, which has led to differential treatment of students across
Australia. In terms of equity, it would be useful to determine if, where, and
for whom, differences in student eligibility for training entitlement matter.
This may be particularly relevant at jurisdictional borders and among national
employers. If significant inequities are found, adjustments to the entitlement
models may be warranted.
Another option would be to restrict eligibility to an entitlement for all working-
age Australians to a first certificate III only, thus providing a clear definition
that fundamentally meets the equity goal. This would focus the entitlement
on the upcoming workforce and second-chance learners without a first
certificate III and therefore limit the government budgets required to fulfil the
entitlement pledge. Any other additional publicly subsidised training for
upskilling and reskilling could be funded separately and could include funding
for a second certificate III and/or higher level qualifications.
Confining the entitlement to a first certificate III qualification for all working-
age Australians who do not yet have such a qualification may also enable
a broadening of the courses deemed eligible. Having all VET courses to
certificate III level in the mix, or at least a broader selection, is more in line
with ‘entitlements’ in higher education, where a student with an income-
contingent loan can do whatever course they choose at any eligible provider,
subject to meeting course entrance requirements. At the very least, adding
those courses in which there is a national but no local skill shortage should
be considered for equity as well as public-value reasons. To not cover
these courses is to restrict labour mobility, a fundamental reason for the
development of the national training system.
TRAINING ENTITLEMENTS AND NATIONAL VET SYSTEM OBJECTIVES
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview14
All jurisdictions have tightened RTO provider eligibility to deliver entitlement training.
Another potential source of inequity is the fact that subsidies and fees, and
consequently the prices providers’ receive for entitlement course differ
across jurisdictions, and even within jurisdictions. While this has always been
the case, where differences cannot be justified more consistency across
the nation in subsidies, fees and prices for the same entitlement course
should be possible, with loadings built in for non-metropolitan locations and
disadvantaged students, as now occurs.
Quality
Assuring quality should be a dominant driver in designing all aspects of
entitlement schemes. In particular, the subsidy level in combination with the
student fee must be high enough to allow for efficient training delivery to
the nationally agreed outcomes standards for VET products (as specified in
training packages and accredited courses). This is currently not always the
case. There are instances where a low subsidy level, when combined with a
reasonable student fee, may not provide sufficient resources to ensure quality
outcomes. Higher subsidies need to be applied to these entitlement courses
to keep fees reasonable for those eligible — the least skilled. This also fits with
the equity goal.
Strong oversight of the credentials and performance of RTOs delivering
entitlements has also proven essential to ensuring quality. Hard lessons have
been learnt in this regard from the early entitlement scheme in Victoria.
Reliance on the then-existing RTO standards (the Australian Quality Training
Framework, see figure 1) and the associated regulatory system proved
not sufficiently robust. Some VET providers engaged in aggressive student
enrolment behaviour, often via brokers, and provided limited or no training
benefits to the students involved. Rectifying these practices and regaining
public confidence in VET are proving challenging tasks.
The jurisdictions are now well positioned to inform ‘fit for purpose’
improvements to national standards for VET providers and training products.
All jurisdictions have tightened RTO provider eligibility to deliver entitlement
training. Their criteria are not the same but they are in keeping with the RTO
standards of 2015, which have shifted the focus towards training outcomes.
Innovations such as in the types of evidence that demonstrate provider
performance could inform improvements to national standards for
training providers.
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 15
The case for public providers to
receive appropriate extra support is
well made but the policy approach
to this has not been consistent
nationally.
Clear mechanisms are required through which effective jurisdictional
practices for determining and managing risk and performance in their training
markets can be identified and incorporated into the national standards and
regulatory system. Standards for providers and training products, and the
guides associated with them, should be continuously improved to ensure
that the contractual requirements for evidence about quality are more
consistent nationally.
Sustainability of the public provider
The differing models for implementing ‘entitlement reforms’ have coincided
with parallel reforms to assist public providers to operate in an environment of
greater competition.
It is broadly acknowledged that the public providers, given their history,
ownership and expertise, do fulfil important public benefit roles. This has had
to be incorporated appropriately into the design of contestable, yet equitable,
funding models. The case for public providers to receive appropriate extra
support is well made, but the policy approach to this has not been consistent
nationally. Table 3 shows that the jurisdictions have gone about supporting the
public provider in the increasing contestable public-funded training in three
different ways. Greater consistency in funding model approaches to this may
be achievable if this issue becomes part of the national discussion.
An observation to be drawn from the varying approaches and outcomes to
entitlement reforms is that the picture is complex, presenting contrasting
evidence of both success and failure of the policy. The successes are seen in
students who commence and complete training through providers that operate
according to high standards, and deliver training efficiently and hence realise
greater value for the public subsidy.
The failures have exposed weaknesses in the market design and in anticipating
the initial market response accurately; understanding an existing private
fee-for-service market; managing quality/cost dynamics; and in responding to
and managing restorative actions. These factors are all the more challenging
when the available public funding is capped. From the providers’ perspective,
both public and private, this has proven the fulcrum for much of the market
disruption, more evident in some jurisdictions than others.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview16
In the current environment there is ‘information asymmetry’, whereby the provider has more or superior information compared with the student.
Transparency and effective consumer information
More needs to be done to help students to understand entitlements and
other government funding options, how to judge provider quality and what
outcomes they can expect from training. In the current environment there
is ‘information asymmetry’, whereby the provider has more or superior
information compared with the student. This is a potentially harmful situation
because a provider could take advantage of the student’s lack of knowledge.
More effort in this area to empower the student is required, perhaps
building on the enhanced national MySkills website recently launched, which
provides some, but not all, of the information required. Good consumer
information could do as much to improve training quality as regulation
standards or funding arrangements.
WHERE TO NEXT?The experience from the implementation of student training entitlements
indicates that a reassessment and reframing of national guiding principles
would be useful, drawing on what has been learnt from the eight models, to
support greater national cohesion and enhance public understanding of and
participation in the initiative. These guiding principles could include:
z flexibility in the funding of training entitlements that focuses on ensuring
public value and that the right mix of skills is produced to meet industry
needs nationally, as well as locally, to assist graduates to obtain jobs and/
or move into further learning
z a national public-value framework that would help to guide the design of
the publicly funded training market, with indicative performance measures
and risk management approaches included
z the acknowledgement of more consistency in the eligibility criteria and in
the logic behind the allocation of subsidies for an entitlement to ensure
public value and quality
z clearer definition and recognition of the role of public providers, and
more consistent treatment of public providers in a competitive market
environment
z more accessible and useful information being made publicly available.
This would enable more informed student choice and greater
responsiveness to student needs, particularly in regards to provider
quality and students costs.
The design concept of a student ‘entitlement’ now sits in some contrast to
what has evolved, this being a ‘managed demand-driven system’, one needing
to satisfy industry requirements and constrained by public budgets.
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 17
A national public- value framework
would help to guide the design of the publicly funded training market.
This drives much of the tension in the process of achieving the right balance
between consistency and flexibility in the national VET system.
The perspectives of the thought leaders interviewed for this research are
valuable in providing ‘colour and context’, in that the various opinions offered
and solutions proposed differ somewhat but all viewed quality training as the
underlying concern.
Summary of the views of the interviewed thought leaders in VET Interview 1: The states need flexibility in what they fund but they should adhere to the set standards for training products (training products, accredited courses etc.) and training providers (RTO standards) in their funding contracts. If they find an issue around quality to do with the standards this should be looked into by the standards regulators and the standards altered appropriately.
Interview 2: The design of the financial levers (subsidies, fees and prices) of all student training entitlements need to assure quality; that the training is delivered efficiently but to the quality standards. Also we still need a better means of assessing quality of training. This is a real weakness. Students need this information to make good training choices. Also we need robust place-based systems to identify local skills needs and what training is delivered at a location.
Interview 3: We need external validation of assessment to assure training quality. This should have been done before and to support the student entitlement approach. We need training funding arrangements more in sync and the financial levers being used properly to keep within budgets and not just to drive down quality. More total funds for VET are needed as well.
Interview 4: While all going on is in keeping with the 2012 Agreement, we need to have another crack at the student entitlement. Surely we can have a more national approach to student eligibility and the courses available, and allow more student choice of training. This of course requires students having better information on how to pick a good provider and the right course for them. Also students need to understand entitlement funding versus VET FEE-HELP loans to aid informed student choice making.
Interview 5: I think course availability should be broad and the quantity required determined by place and local needs. The required quantity should then be used to determine caps. Caps should not be set through subsidy levels that affect quality of outcomes. I think cost structures of delivery for similar courses are not that different by geographic area and could be more uniform. Also, the 2015 RTO Standards are moving in the right direction by shifting focus towards quality of outcomes rather than inputs.
Interview 6: I think we need more national consistency. The biggest threat is courses that are far too short, reduced in length to meet the available dollars, allow for a profit. We need the duration that the training should take stated in training packages. We also need good consumer information, [which] has not yet been achieved. The development of good consumer information in a consistent and independently verifiable way would do more to drive up training quality than either the regulatory body or funding arrangements.
Interview 7: We need to pinpoint where and for whom the student training entitlement is not working. There may be some consistent principles that could be used. The jurisdictions appear to be paying more attention to the VET standards setting process now as they realise it can help out with running their funding arrangements.
Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview18
Interview 8: A decision needs to be taken nationally on whether we want a public provider and their role. The set subsidies, fees and prices need to ensure quality. Regulation in VET needs to be stronger to assure quality. Also auditors and educators require ongoing professional development to improve quality.
Interview 9: Everything is as it should be. All the variability in the student training entitlement is not an issue. We don’t have a national student training entitlement but that was not the intention. The idea was for jurisdictions to tailor it to serve their own labour markets and circumstances. However, with hindsight I believe there should be a second barrier to entry for RTOs (beyond the RTO standards) to deter rogue RTOs not really intent on doing real quality training and other poor quality training providers. Also consumer market information, what students need to know about the VET system in order to purchase a quality qualification, is still a major issue.
Interview 10: For individuals to know what is good training is hard. We agree with choice of provider but there needs to be a better system of consumer information at a national level. It would be best if entitlement eligibility were national to avoid confusion and resentment — I can get it here and not there. Also regulation needs to be tougher — to have the ‘right’ touch rather than ‘light’ touch auditing. The bar for provider entry to the training entitlement market perhaps needs to be raised, via a probationary period and/or more regular auditing of providers. Also the training entitlement needs to be funded properly to achieve quality outcomes, and course subsidies and associated fee levels should not change too often to aid strategic planning by providers.
Interview 11: The debate is all about training market design rather than any coherent thinking about vocational content to provide students with a quality educational experience in the context of contemporary workplaces and society. We still do not have evidence that educational markets work. We need to draw a line in the sand now. We need a rethink about how much training is done through a competitive process and cordon it off. We also need to mandate a minimum duration of training/learning for the various qualifications. At the moment the provider is funded on hours of training, on behalf of the student, yet there is no requirement on the provider to ensure the student gets the minimum hours.
Interview 12: If we are serious about a student entitlement in VET we should make sure there is a reasonable level of consistency. In my view the variability in the student entitlement system and the lack of clarity is a disgrace. At this point in time we need a fully independent review of the ‘national training entitlement’ by those with no DNA in VET but who understand education and training, and markets. We need to go back to first principles. More consistency of effort in areas of national skills shortages is needed. We need to consider tailored funding mechanisms for the existing workforce separately for new entrants and second-chance learners. We need a tighter contractually manageable provider system with fewer larger quality VET providers involved rather than a pure competitive training market and with students, especially younger ones, going into an entitlement obliged to go through independent counselling to help them to choose the best training course and provider for them.
Kaye Bowman, Suzy McKenna, Tabatha Griffin 19
Interview 13: I think the available student training entitlement funding is generating fabricated student demand by the providers and this is skewing investment in training. The safeguards are not really there. Some enterprises are bowing out of government-funded VET for this reason and/or because they think the VET image is so tarnished they are reconsidering their association with it and issuing their own ‘certificate’.
Interview 14: In terms of reviewing the national training entitlement, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There has been a lot of good achieved that has been marred by the lack of regulatory underpinning in the early iterations. But [Australian Skills Quality Authority] is now kicking goals and government agencies are withdrawing contracts — we are picking up on the quality issues. VET still has a good strong reputation among employers and students who see VET as the doorway to a job. The impact of confusing differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on national employers (and national RTOs providing to national or multistate employers) should be considered.
Bowman, K & McKenna, S 2016a, The development of Australia’s national
training system a dynamic tension between consistency and flexibility,
NCVER, Adelaide.
—— 2016b, Jurisdictional approaches to student training entitlements:
commonalities and differences, NCVER, Adelaide.
—— 2016c, Student training models in Australia’s national VET system:
experts’ views, NCVER, Adelaide.
Bradley, D, Noonan, P, Nugent, H & Scales, B 2008, Review of Australian
Higher Education: final report (Bradley Review), Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra.
Council of Australian Governments 2012, National Partnership Agreement on
Skills Reform, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra.
REFERENCES
© Commonwealth of Australia, 2016
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, the Department’s logo, any material protected by a trade mark and where otherwise noted all material presented in this
document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au> licence.
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode>.
The Creative Commons licence conditions do not apply to all logos, graphic design, artwork and photographs. Requests and enquiries concerning other reproduction and rights should be directed to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
This document should be attributed as Bowman, K, McKenna, S & Griffin, T 2016, Balancing consistency and flexibility in student training entitlements: research overview, NCVER, Adelaide.
This work has been produced by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) under the National Vocational Education and Training Research (NVETR) Program, which is coordinated and managed by NCVER on behalf of the Australian Government and state and territory governments. Funding is provided through the Australian Department of Education and Training.
The NVETR program is based upon priorities approved by ministers with responsibility for vocational education and training (VET). This research aims to improve policy and practice in the VET sector. For further information about the program go to the NCVER website <http://www.ncver.edu.au>.
The views and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author/project team and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government, or state and territory governments.
IMAGES: GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCK
ISBN 978 1 925173 44 4
TD/TNC 123.01
Published by NCVER ABN 87 007 967 311
Level 11, 33 King William Street, Adelaide SA 5000
PO Box 8288, Station Arcade, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
P +61 8 8230 8400 F +61 8 8212 3436 E ncver@ncver.edu.au W www.ncver.edu.au
twitter.com/ncver
www.linkedin.com/company/ncver
Recommended